U.S. Military Taught Officers ‘Hiroshima’ Tactics for ‘Total War’ on Islam

[anonymus]

Morning mate. The suns out but still too cold here in the UK. I think I need to have a holiday in warmer climes.



Mate there re two many variables to predict anything with any certainty. In a war with nukes I would not even want to be on the winning side is all I can say

this year summer seems to be milder in subcontinent....

there is overcast skies every alternate day in this part....

 

[LeGenD]

No one is arguing that IF you do manage to detonate a nuke over Tel Aviv (very big IF) you will kill a whole bunch of people.

But that is not what the discussion was about.

Psychological implications wil pale in front of what will follow very shortly after that.

To be blunt - Pakistan would already be dead.

I do not deny this.

However, it is important to focus on the big picture. Nuclear strikes on Pakistan would certainly destroy the country but they will also indirectly damage neighbouring countries.

USA war-gamed a very limited scale nuclear strike on Iran involving a single thermonuclear weapon. According to the results, military objective was accomplished but the fallout on neighbouring countries was the real concern. And I am talking about just a single thermonuclear weapon.

Here;

For example, the new nuclear earth penetrator that the United States plans to research would use a 1.2-megaton weapon. According to a simulation using software developed for the Pentagon, if one of these weapons were used against the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran, 3 million people would be killed by radiation within 2 weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation.

While you can decide the fate of a nation, you cannot control nuclear fallout. Simple.

Nuclear darkness is nothing but 20% fact with 80% fearmongering.

1883 explosion of Krakatoa was equivalent of 200MT ie nearly 100 thermonuclear or 5000 fission bombs going off simultaneously going off.

The world did not ended that day and it probably would not end in case of an all out nuclear war.

Krakatoa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps this study is fear-mongering too:

A nuclear clash could starve the world - CNN.com

People should learn to differentiate between the devastating consequences of global nuclear conflict and natural events of limited scale.

 

[Juice]

Morning mate. The suns out but still too cold here in the UK. I think I need to have a holiday in warmer climes.



Mate there are two many variables to predict anything with any certainty. In a war with nukes I would not even want to be on the winning side is all I can say.

What are you suggesting here that because in your opinion Muslims are defenseless that its ok to run these scenarios committing genocide??

It gets ridiculously hot here in Texas, drop by (ps....Mexican girls are HOT)

You know darn well that any nation with a sizeable military games for every possibility, don't pretend you don't.

 

[lem34]

this year summer seems to be milder in subcontinent....

there is overcast skies every alternate day in this part....

Four years ago I imported several hundred AC's into UK from China. lol. Since then we have not had a good summer. I got rid of them and sold them to someone last week and they are on the way to Dubai as we speak. Sods law we will now see a good summer. lol

 

[anonymus]

Morning mate. The suns out but still too cold here in the UK. I think I need to have a holiday in warmer climes.



Mate there are two many variables to predict anything with any certainty. In a war with nukes I would not even want to be on the winning side is all I can say.

What are you suggesting here that because in your opinion Muslims are defenseless that its ok to run these scenarios committing genocide??

A Global nuclear war would bring great devastation probably 2-300million dead but the most horrifying consequences of nuclear war as portrayed by activists would not come to pass.

Continental size countries would simply get up,dust off their shirts and get on with life.Nuclear war would result in a decade or two of progress lost.

 

[lem34]

It gets ridiculously hot here in Texas, drop by (ps....Mexican girls are HOT)

I do like the South American look. But if Mrs B sees me discussing women here on the forum I will soon get my head kicked in.

Anyway back to topic it is ridiculous that any nation can consider such scenarios. We need to spend less money in the current economic climate on masturbating war scenarios and destroying whole races and religions in wars

A Global nuclear war would bring great devastation probably 2-300million dead but the most horrifying consequences of nuclear war as portrayed by activists would not come to pass.

Continental size countries would simply get up,dust off their shirts and get on with life.Nuclear war would result in a decade or two of progress lost.

Mate 200 300 million dead?? You mean that is not bad enough??

 

[vsdoc]

Mate there re two many variables to predict anything with any certainty. In a war with nukes I would not even want to be on the winning side is all I can say

I agree.

But me, and Juice, and S19, and others here who are trying to dissect and war game dispassionately (as oppose to the "for our religion we will nuke you even if we all die" types) are simply saying that IF this were to be a crusade against Islam as a whole as if being made out to be as a result of a text book war gaming exercise, then quite simply and unambiguously, Islam will lose. With huge losses. With the potential of very little if any losses to the other side in retaliation.

That is the military truth.

And the US could do it on its own. Just 300 million of them against the 1.6 billion muslims. Again, IF it came down to it.

Hell, you wouldn't even need Russia.

The UK or France could equally well do it push come to shove time.

All that would be needed was for the other "Christian" and non-Abrahamic nuclear powers to stand quietly to the side.

The only checks and balances in the real world, from the Cold War era to today, have been the dynamics of balance of power and the impossibility of unilateral strikes without neessary consensus between the big two.

Take that out of the equation, and it is ridiculously easy to commit genocide on the level of wiping out a sub-species - on a scale of the dinausaurs.

 

[anonymus]

I do not deny this.

However, it is important to focus on the big picture. Nuclear strikes on Pakistan would certainly destroy the country but they will also indirectly damage neighbouring countries.

USA war-gamed a very limited scale nuclear strike on Iran involving a single thermonuclear weapon. According to the results, military objective was accomplished but the fallout on neighbouring countries was the real concern. And I am talking about just a single thermonuclear weapon.

Here;

For example, the new nuclear earth penetrator that the United States plans to research would use a 1.2-megaton weapon. According to a simulation using software developed for the Pentagon, if one of these weapons were used against the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran, 3 million people would be killed by radiation within 2 weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation.

While you can decide the fate of a nation, you cannot control nuclear fallout. Simple.



Perhaps this study is fear-mongering too:

A nuclear clash could starve the world - CNN.com

People should learn to differentiate between the devastating consequences of global nuclear conflict and natural events of limited scale.

The scale of those natural event which you are dismissing as limited has been of same scale as that of global nuclear war.

The theories of Global famine,Global winter and Ozone depletion is a handiwork of activist whose aim is to spook people rather than have a constructive debate.

 

[lem34]

You know darn well that any nation with a sizeable military games for every possibility, don't pretend you don't.

Listen mate I love playing risk diplomacy axis and allies and other board games etc but we sign blue team and red teams etc not bleeding Muslims and Jews destroyed by a dice throw.

Anyway Juice I am off to the office, be there in 15 minutes but have some work for an hour or so. If you not on when I get back have a good evening. Take care

 

[King Solomon]

Anyway back to topic it is ridiculous that any nation can consider such scenarios. We need to spend less money in the current economic climate on masturbating war scenarios and destroying whole races and religions in wars

Ah we are definitely not doing that. All we were discussing is some members like pakdefender challenged that US cannot win war against islam by nuking mecca/medina about 10 pages ago. I disproved all his arguments and later the topic diverted about nuking tel aviv. Yet, his points were disproved because flattening tel aviv from a military point of view would require at least 10 nukes of the calibre pakistan has. So, the conclusion is pakistan's nukes are a deterrent but definitely not a tool.

 

[anonymus]

I do like the South American look. But if Mrs B sees me discussing women here on the forum I will soon get my head kicked in.

Anyway back to topic it is ridiculous that any nation can consider such scenarios. We need to spend less money in the current economic climate on masturbating war scenarios and destroying whole races and religions in wars



Mate 200 300 million dead?? You mean that is not bad enough??

If you separate emotions from calculation 300 million is not even 1% of total population.

 

[LeGenD]

While Hiroshima suffered greatly, it was susceptible to fire-bombing (military planning no longer considers fire-bombing effective, not only for moral reasons, modern construction makes it less effective). Fission weapons ARE terrible, but not as much as is in the popular imagination. It is a large amount of fussion weapons that can have the effect you see in the anti-nuke web-sites. To help you understand, imagine if the megabytes of RAM you have were reduced to kilobytes, does that help?

(you are right about the disruption tho, city life would come to an end for a while, but most would live, and be helped by civil defense, and be VERY mad)

You need to understand the difference between WWII era and modern age societal dynamics.

Let us consider the case of New York City. It is an enormous economic hub. A single nuclear attack on Manhattan alone will seize the entire economic activity of the city. Survivors will be rushing out of the city to avoid getting effected by radioactivity. Imagine the damage this will do to US economy. Rebuilding will be EXTREMELY expensive and a lengthy process. Just look at the cost of World Trade Center. Get the picture?

 

[vsdoc]

What are you suggesting here that because in your opinion Muslims are defenseless that its ok to run these scenarios committing genocide??

I have not gotten into the morals or ethics of this discussion from the start of the thread man. I am sure you would have noticed that. So suggesting as much is unfair.

Personally, I've already stated what I believe to be true about the West and Islam. No right or wrong about it. Its there. And I am an uninterested party at best.

 

[anonymus]

You need to understand the difference between WWII era and modern age societal dynamics.

Let us consider the case of New York City. It is an enormous economic hub. A single nuclear attack on Manhattan alone will seize the entire economic activity of the city. Survivors will be rushing out of the city to avoid getting effected by radioactivity. Imagine the damage this will do to US economy. Rebuilding will be EXTREMELY expensive and a lengthy process. Just look at the cost of World Trade Center. Get the picture?

Man,

no one is arguing about fact that nuclear war would be disruptive.I am only arguing against the global Armageddon scenarios painted by activists.For those to come to fruitition,at lest 5000 MT of nukes have to go off simultaneously.

The social effect would be devastating and countries may have to apply martial law to deal with it but nothing that can't be remade.Wall street can operate from a straw hut also rather than fancy offices if things come to such a pass.

 

[LeGenD]

The scale of those natural event which you are dismissing as limited has been of same scale as that of global nuclear war.

The theories of Global famine,Global winter and Ozone depletion is a handiwork of activist whose aim is to spook people rather than have a constructive debate.

No, genius! It isn't the same thing.

Here is an analogy; a powerful earthquake struck Northern regions of Pakistan in 2005, exterminating 70,000 and displacing millions.

In comparison, if 100 nukes hit Pakistan in various regions, they will end Pakistani society and make many parts of the country inhabitable. See the difference?